O.J Simpson didn't do it and here is why...

Here’s Fuhrman’s take on how the attacks happened:

historyvshollywood.com

Mark Fuhrman Tells Oprah How O.J. Murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman

Watch Mark Fuhrman Tells Oprah How O.J. Murdered Nicole and Ron Goldman video.

Open link

Support?

Changing your tune, eh? You are now saying numerous black people were not justified in cheering for Simpson when he was acquitted of double murder.

And this statement by you: "They weren't cheering that O.J. Simpson the man was found not guilty" is (1) something you made up on the fly, as you have no idea whether its true or not, and (2) demeaning to black people -- you are saying black people cheered the Not Guilty verdict on Simpson's unjustified and brutal double murder because of Simpson's skin color, and not based on any belief that Simpson was actually not guilty or innocent. That is quite an allegation against black people. And unjustified racist allegation by you.

Your stupidity is even more impressive. I am not entering a running race with younger people - and nor was OJ. But even at my age I have enough strength to easily use a weapon like a knife - were I so motivated (I am not) - and stabbing another human being would be no more physically difficult than cutting a cucumber.

You clearly weren't present during the trial or you would have been aware of the racial dimensions that it acquired and that Simpson's legal team played upon. Indeed, if the jury's decision in the criminal trial was not largely racially-based it is difficult to explain how a subsequent civil jury had no difficulty in finding him guilty and thus liable. Perhaps you are of the view that black people cannot understand the facts in a criminal trial - which would of course be a somewhat racist conclusion?

While the attack was likely not predetermined it still would have been a surprise to both of the victims. When a person is being stabbed it may not be immediately apparent to a bystander and if they attempt to interfere they will also be incapacitated pretty quickly. That is likely what occurred during this situation and was demonstrated during the trial. It was never in dispute as to whether it could have happened this quickly.

The trial did not revolve around whether Simpson was capable of killing them - which is what this absurd thread is debating - but whether Simpson was in fact the perpetrator on the evidence before the court. That is a completely different question. The civil jury answered that question in the affirmative.

lol does anyone on this board really believe oj didn't do it? I get the community wanting him to get away with it. I mean if it was a white dude killing 2 blacks It would be normal for whites to cheer for an acquittal, right? BLM would't have a problem with that would they ? No race riots either ?

Dude....you're forever babbling about something which you have enough info to be dangerous. The trial focused on many aspects of the case which included, even though briefly, how the crime occurred and that it was plausible for one person to kill two people that quickly. You know why it's included in the trial? Because if they don't, the potential of a juror like the poster above claiming it couldn't have, might be the one vote who deadlocks a jury.

You may now commence with five more posts all pretty much babbling a bunch of nothing in contribution to the thread.

OK boomer believe what you wish. But there is no way a 47 year old OJ with a bum knee would have taken me down without some serious injuries to himself and not just some cut finger.

Aren't you from Australia or something? WTF do you know about being "present" during the Simpson trial?

Civil trials have a different burden of proof, different burden of persuasion, different evidentiary concerns, different Constitutional rights to deal with. It's too bad you are unaware of those differences, because your ignorance of them makes your post gibberish.

According to some forensic experts, not sure if they testified in the trial or not but Simpson simultaneously knocked out Niconle and Ron then began attacking them with a knife. Which is even harder to believe

Not premeditated? He went there with a ski mask and the infamous gloves that “did not fit.” Lol

Let's do this.

Mr. Lavasseur constructed a believable timeline about Jason that was basically accepted, even after the Goldman family accepted it wasn't Jason...

He successfully debunked Detective William Dear's arguments.

So with Mr. Lavasseur having been an officer before a reality show contestant and winner coupled with his exoneration of Jason, whom Dear was actively pursuing...

Explain with actual evidence of mens rea with regard to Jason alone...how you can implicate Jason on legal ground.

I'm not reputable...that's a given..but if you use that as your defense? That's passion...not law.

What's your legal argument regarding Jason Simpson?

Yep. What a disgusting and exploitive pig, to title his book like that. A total cash grab and an insult to the families of the victims.

You probably weren't alive in the early nineties so you don't recall what the trial was about. It wasn't about whether Simpson was strong enough to kill two people with a knife but whether he did it - did the evidence establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was him. That was what the famous "glove" incident in the courtroom highlighted. A civil jury unaffected by the racial question that pervaded the criminal case unanimously concluded he did.

So tell us once again how this frail little old man couldn't have committed the killings. Because there is nothing else to this unbelievably fatuous thread.

I have 2 metal hips. If I had a knife and surprised you I doubt you would have caused me much difficulty. Simpson's "bum knee" meant he couldn't play pro sports, not that he couldn't stab anyone. He wasn't in a wheelchair - or in a sprint race. Your naivety is off the charts.

He thought he was taking a skiing trip. Dementia, too, obviously. He was really 95 - right?